Although I agree with Mr. McCarthy's conclusion that the disgraced Republican politicians hate themselves more than they hate the gay community, that doesn't provoke the slightest compassion from me. In fact, these men were some of the most influential Republican operatives before their hypocrisy brought them down, and they used their influence almost exclusively against the gay community. More important, Mr. McCarthy fails to mention that not a single Democratic presidental hopeful is in favor of gay marriage, despite their dependence on contributions of wealthy gay donors. It seems that the Democrats simply want to take from the gay community but give little or nothing in return, with the unspoken assumption that we will continue to give them our votes and contributions because we have no alternatives. I'll take a socially progressive Republican like Rudy Guliani who, after moving out and initiating divorce proceedings, moved in with his gay best friend and his lover, over a Democrat who takes from the gay community without giving back any day. Actions speak louder than words, and I think the Democratic Party has taken the gay vote for granted way too long. Let's take a stand against hypocrisy in both parties.

Andrew Harlow

Sacramento, CA

Lost, once again, within this entire culture of "depraved" sexuality, the culture of binary distinction, is the oft-overlooked notion that sexuality exists on a continuum and not on a plot of equally divided land labeled "Gay" and "Straight." We are still failing to see that some of our fellow human beings have sexual relations with both men and women, though usually you'll find that it is not an equal mixture.

There are in this world many men who define themselves as straight who nonetheless have sexual intercourse with other men, be it from time to time or on a regular basis. So, too, are there women who relate with other women, though they are married mothers of three and living in posh suburbs. None of this is dirty, shameful or disgusting.

As for shaming a man for allegedly wanting sexual relations with other men, well, we've not come a long way after all. Call this man, and his party, out for his hypocrisy, not for his choice of partners. I, for one, feel very sorry for the Senator, that he must hide his true feelings (if that's what he was actually doing; we may never know for sure, unless he tells us) for fear of what is happening to him now.

So long as humans continue to seek sexual gratification, and I suspect we will until the day comes that we're extinct from this planet, we will do so, and do so with men and women, gay, straight or bisexual. The time is long overdue for concrete, resolute definitions of "homo" and "hetero" to fall by the wayside and decompose there for all eternity.

Nicholas Schreiter

Appleton, WI

Now it appears that Senator Craig is not going to retire from his office. Is Craig adopting a different "stance?"

And will the new "stance" be a variation of that infamous "wide stance" he loved to take in public restrooms?

"I puffed, but didn't inhale" is what former President Clinton said about his alleged wacky-weed activities. "I puffed, but didn't swallow" could now be the answer for any future questions to a certain Idaho senator about his peculiar bathroom activities.

Greg Bacon

Ava, MO

You are right that being a heterosexual hypocrite tends to be punished with a comparatively mild rebuke, little more than a clucking of the tongue, and a waving of the finger, "tsk, tsk," while a hypocrite caught in a homosexual act has hell to pay. But there is something even bigger being brought to light in the Larry Craig case.

I have just heard that Senator Craig may reconsider his decision to resign, and in that decision he deserves all of our support. I admit that I experienced a moment of Schadenfreude upon hearing of Senator Larry Craig's guilty plea after the sting operation in the Minneapolis airport. It is good to hear about right-wing hypocrites getting their comeuppance. However, I soon felt uneasy about the whole thing. Weren't the public, the press and Senator Craig's own colleagues jumping to conclusions? And more generally, is it the role of our law enforcement agencies to go around trolling for miscreants? Should we really pay cops to hangout in bathrooms to catch people who might be easily tempted into doing something naughty; should attractive female police officers dress up like prostitutes in order to nab hapless men who may or may not otherwise have been seeking sex for money; should FBI agents pose as drug dealers to catch users, etc.? Are there not enough genuine crimes that do not require the complicity of our law enforcement officers to make them happen? Perhaps Senator Craig was right when he accused the arresting officer of entrapment. I object to perhaps every position that Senator Craig has taken as a lawmaker, but I hope he fights this charge and reverses his decision to resign and wins his case. More broadly, I hope that Larry Craig's case leads us to question the ethics of law enforcement practices that lure people into committing crimes that otherwise might never have occurred.

Robert Austin

Seminole, FL